Court sets live-in relationship rules

Not all women in live-in relationships are entitled to seek maintenance under the domestic violence law which was enacted in 2005 to protect women in domestic relationships from any sort of abuse.

Though the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act included within its ambit women living in a relationship in the nature of marriage, the Supreme Court on October 21 held that the phrase "in the nature of marriage" could not be used by women in all sorts of live-in relationships to seek protection under the 2005 Act.

A bench presided over by Justice Markandey Katju admitted that the term domestic relationship was probably given a wide meaning in the 2005 Act to protect women in live-in relationships but, in its opinion, not all women in live- in relationships were entitled to the benefit of the new law.

Giving a restrictive meaning to the Act which seemingly recognised the new social order, the court said a woman in a live-in relationship would be entitled to protection or maintenance under the domestic violence law only if the couple fulfilled certain conditions.

The couple must hold themselves out to society as spouses for a significant period of time, they must be cohabiting, must be unmarried and fulfill all other conditions set out for a valid marriage, the court said, while defining the phrase "in the nature of marriage" for the first time. Probably conscious of the fact that it was giving a conservative interpretation to the new-age law, the court said: "No doubt the view we are taking would exclude many women who have had a live-in relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act, but then it is not for this court to legislate or amend the law." Justice Katju pointed out that Parliament had used the expression ' relationship in the nature of marriage' and not 'live- in relationship'. "The court, in the grab of interpretation, cannot change the language of the statute," he said.

Though the court was dealing with a case for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC which made a provision for maintenance to a wife, it went ahead to explore possibilities of a woman being entitled to maintenance despite not being a legally wedded wife.

Taking note of the domestic violence law, the court said Indian society was changing and this change was reflected and recognised by Parliament enacting the law in 2005. At one time, sex outside marriage was a taboo, it added.

The court heard arguments on the ambit of protection under the domestic violence law and finally decided to interpret the expression "in the nature of marriage" for the benefit of women not falling within the ambit of the protection under Section 125 of the CrPC. A second wife or a woman failing to prove a valid marriage was not entitled to maintenance under the CrPC. After elaborating on the law, Justice Katju remanded the matter back to the Coimbatore family court for taking a decision in the light of observations made by the court. During the hearing, Justice Katju had pointed out that it had to protect the right of women in live- in relationships but not at the cost of the institution of marriage.